free would you ratherIs it better for 99 guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person go to jail?

I've heard this quote before...how do you feel about this concept?

Would you rather have a law in place that might put one innocent person in jail due to the wording of the law, but would ensure criminals paid for their crimes?

Or

Would you prefer that laws were written in order to ensure that the one innocent person would not be convicted? Even if that meant that most guilty people would also be set free?
Most people would say lock up the one innocent with the 99 guilty. That is until they happen to become the one.
No. I think that the 1 person would feel good about himself knowing that the world is safe from 99 pricks. Hopefully he doesn't stay in jail too long.
In a British court case, tried by a jury, there is no real percentage of certainty that you can say must be acfree would you ratherhieved for a conviction. It must simply be 'beyond reasonable doubt', however the jury decides that.

If the accuser fails to get a conviction, then they can decide to bring the accused to a civil court case. If the judge decides that the accused is more than 50% likely (however the judge decides that) to have done the crime then they can demand that the accused pays the accuser so much money. Civil cases do not result in imprisonment.

I am not sure if you can always bring a civil case either if a jury convicts in a court case or if they don't.

There used to be a centuries old double jeopardy law until recently, which prevented someone from being tried for the same crime twice. This resulted in some cases where the accused later admitted doing the crime or where new evidencfree would you rathere had emerged yet the accused could not be tried again.

As the double jeopardy law no longer exists, there is perhaps less pressure on juries to convict where there is relatively flimsy evidence. The repeal of the double jeopardy law should result in less miscarriages of justice, both for the accused and their accusers.

In countries with the death penalty, convicting one innocent person of the worst crimes would be terrible.
yes it is.
yes
As long as you explain it to the 1 innocent person's family after the execution.
lol. No I think 99 bad people out of our hair is better than saving 1 innocent and let 99 go kill someone else.
I need a confused emoticon for this. But, I choose the last set of questions [Those sound reasonable to me]